[Cabinanteerip]

I don't think they would necessarily stop transmitting outside of school. It's open to abuse on by all kinds of people. Whether it's the students giving the tags to friends before disapperaing, the wrong staff getting access to kids whereabouts, other people being able to track kids outside to school. It just sounds like a way for someone to make money at the expense of others. If every school did this, a whole generation would be tracked. Do you think there might be a time when these tags are never removed?

The kind of RFID used for access control is powered by the electromagnetic waves sent from the control unit. Can you imagine the ball-ache if they were battery powered?

Before anyone questions how I know this, I was heavily involved in the building of an RFID access control / payment system.

Here is a link to a video of this system being used at Splore festival in NZ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_tGx9VMdLE

Here is a link to the website of this software in case anyone is interested:

http://www.red-tech.co.uk/index.php?id=4

[qwerty1]

I did watch the video. He says they don't track them off campus, but that doesn't stop them from being tracked off campus does it?

I don't think you did watch it, or didn't understand it, because that's not what he says at all. He says it only works within the four walls of the assigned school, and once you walk out the door you're off the grid. It cannot track them out of the assigned area. Note: "cannot," not "does not."

[__CVineXPharm__]

I don't think you did watch it, or didn't understand it, because that's not what he says at all. He says it only works within the four walls of the assigned school, and once you walk out the door you're off the grid. It cannot track them out of the assigned area. Note: "cannot," not "does not."

What the guy in the video is erm, wrong. He's a reporter who's turned up to a school, and that's the crap he's been told. Don't be so naive. They don't only work within the walls of the school, thats ridiculous. It's a device that can the tracked with the right equipment. Like Bungle said, it's passive. There's no switching it off. If it's powered by control unit like Dangermoose said, the range in huge.

Even when it's used within the school, it's still wrong. No one want's people to know how long and when they go to the bathroom. Students might not want to go see school councilers or resource officers, knowing that other people who they've been.

But like Tinomen and Arathorn said, it's about gettings people to accept the idea of being tracked from a young age. That, and making money.

[affozyBoomi]

What the guy in the video is erm, wrong. He's a reporter who's turned up to a school, and that's the crap he's been told. Don't be so naive. They don't only work within the walls of the school, thats ridiculous. It's a device that can the tracked with the right equipment. Like Bungle said, it's passive. There's no switching it off. If it's powered by control unit like Dangermoose said, the range in huge.

Even when it's used within the school, it's still wrong. No one want's people to know how long and when they go to the bathroom. Students might not want to go see school councilers or resource officers, knowing that other people who they've been.

But like Tinomen and Arathorn said, it's about gettings people to accept the idea of being tracked from a young age. That, and making money.

More misinterpretation, I think you need to take the aluminium hat off dude, i'm far from naive, but you are certainly bordering on paranoid. They have a limited operational range, and i think the reporter would be a little more informed about his news piece than yourself. Maybe, just maybe, they want to use them for exactly what they say, it does happen you know, they are already used in many areas beyond this and have been for a number of years.

[TornadoPD]

More misinterpretation, I think you need to take the aluminium hat off dude, i'm far from naive, but you are certainly bordering on paranoid. They have a limited operational range, and i think the reporter would be a little more informed about his news piece than yourself. Maybe, just maybe, they want to use them for exactly what they say, it does happen you know, they are already used in many areas beyond this and have been for a number of years.

So you're saying it's not possible to track the tags from off school grounds? And you're basing this on your interpretation of what that news reporter says? The news reporter is not educated in this matter any more than I am. The reporter might be informed, but he'll be informed by whoever he talks to at the school or from the tag company, which may give a slightly one-sided view. This goes some way towards balancing the news story, with the parents and students being on the opposing side.

I know it exists already at other places, and that only makes it worse. The whole story is about students and parents protesting, and they're the one's who have to wear the tags, so I think they're the ones who's opinion about wearing them should be listened to. Not yours or mine. It's making money at the expense of people privacy, and experimenting with children. It's wrong in my opinion.

If you think I sound paranoid then fine. But i'd rather come across like that than be someone who just says "yeah whatever, I don't care" and lays down and submits. At what point do you say enough is enough?

[Thomaswhitee]

So you're saying it's not possible to track the tags from off school grounds? And you're basing this on your interpretation of what that news reporter says? The news reporter is not educated in this matter any more than I am. The reporter might be informed, but he'll be informed by whoever he talks to at the school or from the tag company, which may give a slightly one-sided view. This goes some way towards balancing the news story, with the parents and students being on the opposing side.

I'm saying they (the school and presumably the provider of the technology,) say it has a limited functional range, and there is absolutely no reason to assume they are lying. It's not difficult to understand.

I know it exists already at other places, and that only makes it worse. The whole story is about students and parents protesting, and they're the one's who have to wear the tags, so I think they're the ones who's opinion about wearing them should be listened to. Not yours or mine. It's making money at the expense of people privacy, and experimenting with children. It's wrong in my opinion.

You notice how the students main protest was that she had wear something akin to a dog tag around her neck? That's their main protest, the aesthetics and inconvenience, not what it's actually being used for.

If you think I sound paranoid then fine. But i'd rather come across like that than be someone who just says "yeah whatever, I don't care" and lays down and submits. At what point do you say enough is enough?

It sounds paranoid yes, because that's a complete overreaction to something which is essentially innocuous. If you take it at face value, rather than trying to believe they have some ulterior motive, then it's merely a useful tool.

[deermealec]

I'm saying they (the school and presumably the provider of the technology,) say it has a limited functional range, and there is absolutely no reason to assume they are lying. It's not difficult to understand.

It still has a range then. This can be 6 foot or 200 foot. I didn't see anyone specify. The reporter was saying that as far as the college are concerned, they don't care where students are once they're off school property. How can he be speaking for all school staff? Like red_dog007 said, a school in Philly gave students laptops what actually took photos of the kids every few minutes so they could see what they were doing at home (ie potentially getting changed for bed umongst other things). There's enough control freaks and perverts around for me to not want to give up any more privacy than is absolutely essential.

You notice how the students main protest was that she had wear something akin to a dog tag around her neck? That's their main protest, the aesthetics and inconvenience, not what it's actually being used for.

You're taking that one small video as all source of information. I think there's more to the complaints than one kid saying "it's too big and like a dog collar".

It sounds paranoid yes, because that's a complete overreaction to something which is essentially innocuous. If you take it at face value, rather than trying to believe they have some ulterior motive, then it's merely a useful tool.

At face value, they don't care about the kids safety, it's all about receiving more money.

I'm not saying you're wrong as such, and I agree that teachers knowing when a student gets to school and what classroom they are in is nothing sinister and it may even save them time. But it's the abuse it's open to and where this need for control leads to thats the issue.

[Ltftujkg]

If it's powered by control unit like Dangermoose said, the range in huge.

Kind of, the range is technically infinite as long as there is a network of control units. The RFID unit (unless powered or otherwise active) has a pretty limited range. Ours work to about 20cm because we need them to do that. I think they will go to about 6 feet with the type we use. The problem is that the wider the range, the more transactions you have to complete in a given time-frame. I can't go into any further detail of how our system internals work I'm afraid.

If anyone wants to pick me up on some missing details, I'm being deliberately vague.

--- Post Update ---

So you're saying it's not possible to track the tags from off school grounds?

Not with these kind of RFID tags. Once you are outside the network of control units the RFID bounce-back means nothing.

[nerohedfrs]

It still has a range then. This can be 6 foot or 200 foot. I didn't see anyone specify. The reporter was saying that as far as the college are concerned, they don't care where students are once they're off school property. How can he be speaking for all school staff? Like red_dog007 said, a school in Philly gave students laptops what actually took photos of the kids every few minutes so they could see what they were doing at home (ie potentially getting changed for bed umongst other things). There's enough control freaks and perverts around for me to not want to give up any more privacy than is absolutely essential.

They did specify, when you leave the building, however large an area that may be, they can't give completely accurate numbers since the building is not uniform in size, it may be 1000ft wide by 500ft in length. As DM eluded to, they'll probably place multiple units around the school to cover a specific area. The example of the laptops is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with this technology and how it's used.

Also, you have an obvious distrust of the media, so it shouldn't be hard for you to accept that they are trying to build this into something it's not, all they had was one family to interview, which is why they say in the report, "at least one family," because they are the only ones to have complained, otherwise you can be sure they would have had statements and interviews from other parents or students.

You're taking that one small video as all source of information. I think there's more to the complaints than one kid saying "it's too big and like a dog collar".

I'm taking what information is available right now and basing my opinion on that. I'm not adding "ifs" and "maybes" to support my case, i'm using the facts that are there right now.

At face value, they don't care about the kids safety, it's all about receiving more money.

I'm not saying you're wrong as such, and I agree that teachers knowing when a student gets to school and what classroom they are in is nothing sinister and it may even save them time. But it's the abuse it's open to and where this need for control leads to thats the issue.

How can this be about receiving more money? It's no doubt going to cost a considerable sum to set up and maintain this system, so where does the profit making come into it exactly? This helps them save money they already have, which in the long term would pay for this system and then go on to free up funds for more important, educational, things, but it does not create extra income.

The system may be open to abuse, but everything is open to abuse; let's ban camera/phone use in public, as that can be abused, lets ban Youtube, that can be abused, lets ban TV, that can be abused, the computer you're using right now, we could go on forever. It's a win/win situation, it helps keep students safe in times of need and it helps save the schools money. I see no reason to think otherwise.

[ignonsoli]

They did specify, when you leave the building, however large an area that may be, they can't give completely accurate numbers since the building is not uniform in size, it may be 1000ft wide by 500ft in length. As DM eluded to, they'll probably place multiple units around the school to cover a specific area. The example of the laptops is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with this technology and how it's used.

The laptop example is relevent in the sense that people, including those who work in schools, can't be trusted. I wouldn't want to be giving up my privacy anyone unneccessarily.

Also, you have an obvious distrust of the media, so it shouldn't be hard for you to accept that they are trying to build this into something it's not, all they had was one family to interview, which is why they say in the report, "at least one family," because they are the only ones to have complained, otherwise you can be sure they would have had statements and interviews from other parents or students.

That news channel interviewed that one family but they arn't the only ones that complained. The complaints are coming from more than one school, and by a number of students and parents. A similar system was trialled a few years ago and then was canned because of parent complaints.

I'm taking what information is available right now and basing my opinion on that. I'm not adding "ifs" and "maybes" to support my case, i'm using the facts that are there right now.

You can't have looked that far into it if you think one girl and her father are the only ones complaining. If's are relevent because they are possiblities.

How can this be about receiving more money? It's no doubt going to cost a considerable sum to set up and maintain this system, so where does the profit making come into it exactly? This helps them save money they already have, which in the long term would pay for this system and then go on to free up funds for more important, educational, things, but it does not create extra income.

Again, you can't have read anything about it other than watching that video and guessing the rest. All you have to do is look and you'll find examples like....

The system may be open to abuse, but everything is open to abuse; let's ban camera/phone use in public, as that can be abused, lets ban Youtube, that can be abused, lets ban TV, that can be abused, the computer you're using right now, we could go on forever. It's a win/win situation, it helps keep students safe in times of need and it helps save the schools money. I see no reason to think otherwise.

Cameras, TV and Youtube dont have anything to do with this. They arn't tracking children or taking away liberties. The system isn't keeping anyone safe. If anything it'll make teachers think kids are in school when they arn't because they'll have given tags to someone else. You'd hope there were better ways to persuaded kids to stay in school.

It's also not so much about how terrible this system would be in isolation. It's where it leads after.

[Britiobby]

Where's Bungle? There is a handicapped competition going on in this thread for no charge. I am psyched!

[Haibundadam]

Kyros, the only way that you can be reliably tracked anywhere on the planet is GPS. As you already have this in your phone I don't see why you are banging on about this so much.

RFID has many limitations. We can only track people as they pass through one of our access gates or interact with our system.

[Flefebleaft]

Kyros, the only way that you can be reliably tracked anywhere on the planet is GPS. As you already have this in your phone I don't see why you are banging on about this so much.

RFID has many limitations. We can only track people as they pass through one of our access gates or interact with our system.

I'm sure you're right but that was only part of the issue with them.

Not worth arguing over, but it's obviously causing concern for many people.

[L0KoxewQ]

Not worth arguing over, but it's obviously causing concern for many people that don't understand what is happening.

Fixed that for you.

Regarding privacy, the only information we retain globally is a transaction history and user submitted registration information.

--- Post Update ---

Where's Bungle? There is a handicapped competition going on in this thread for no charge. I am psyched!

Have you put on weight? You seem unnecessarily bitter recently.

[Seeseeskeva]

The foil hatter is right.

It is about what people are willing to tolerate; it is a slippery slope.

First RFID is on school bounds only, then it starts to move beyond that. This is what is meant by the erosion of civil liberties.

It is easy to justify all incremental steps, but after a while you move into an area that is invasive. Look at airport security in the US as an example.

--- Post Update ---

You seem unnecessarily bitter recently.

Hmm. Noted.

[Emapymosy]

The foil hatter is right.

It is about what people are willing to tolerate; it is a slippery slope.

First RFID is on school bounds only, then it starts to move beyond that. This is what is meant by the erosion of civil liberties.

It is easy to justify all incremental steps, but after a while you move into an area that is invasive. Look at airport security in the US as an example.

No, no and more no.

It's RFID, as a tracking technology it is useless.

[aspinswramymn]

Fixed that for you.

Regarding privacy, the only information we retain globally is a transaction history and user submitted registration information.

The way you use the technology isn't necessarily the way everyone else uses it.

I'm sure people understand it tracks their location and if they arn't OK with that then there's a problem.

The real concern is this.... It's not too dissimilar from a prison as it is. It shows no tust. Kids will grow up accusomed to it. If we all say yeah yeah it's fine, fit us with tags then everntually each school one by one will implement the system. Kids will forget or loose them so the idea of implanting the chips will come about, and once again everyone will roll over and take it. Then they'll say your kids will be safer if we use GPS because it's more accurate, so again, you'll get a gps device shoved up your arse. Some schools already use gps to track certain students.

--- Post Update ---

No, no and more no.

It's RFID, as a tracking technology it is useless.

You've got to try and look at the bigger picture. As an Individual step it's not so terrible at all, I agree, right down to what the technology is capable of. The problem is where it leads. Like will.i.am said.

[UvgpXK0J]

No, no and more no.

It's RFID, as a tracking technology it is useless.

I think you may need to think about the scale of video cameras, roads, plumbing, mobile phone networks and the electrical grid before you dismiss this possibility. The current scope of all of those were beyond imagination at some point too.

Before you hit reply, consider the fact that I have a pretty good comprehension of the technology and it limitations.

[Lymneterfeiff]

I think you may need to think about the scale of video cameras, roads, plumbing, mobile phone networks and the electrical grid before you dismiss this possibility. The current scope of all of those were beyond imagination at some point too.

Before you hit reply, consider the fact that I have a pretty good comprehension of the technology and it limitations.

I think you should stick to air conditioning. The point is that RFID requires someone to carry an RFID chip for it to work. You can't monitor someone who isn't carrying a device that doesn't talk to your network and it will never be used for tracking as there are about 20 better ways to do that.

--- Post Update ---

You've got to try and look at the bigger picture. As an Individual step it's not so terrible at all, I agree, right down to what the technology is capable of. The problem is where it leads. Like will.i.am said.

You are really trying to argue with the wrong guy on this subject.

[Sironimoll]

You are really trying to argue with the wrong guy on this subject.

Why do you say that? Because you know more about RFID than me, or what?